Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Larivière, V."
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Lozano, G.A.; Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.: ¬The weakening relationship between the impact factor and papers' citations in the digital age (2012) 0.04 
    0.03603906 = product of:
  0.10811718 = sum of:
    0.10811718 = weight(_text_:20th in 486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10811718 = score(doc=486,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30845094 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.345029 = idf(docFreq=210, maxDocs=44218)
          0.048613008 = queryNorm
        0.35051662 = fieldWeight in 486, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.345029 = idf(docFreq=210, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=486)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Historically, papers have been physically bound to the journal in which they were published; but in the digital age papers are available individually, no longer tied to their respective journals. Hence, papers now can be read and cited based on their own merits, independently of the journal's physical availability, reputation, or impact factor (IF). We compare the strength of the relationship between journals' IFs and the actual citations received by their respective papers from 1902 to 2009. Throughout most of the 20th century, papers' citation rates were increasingly linked to their respective journals' IFs. However, since 1990, the advent of the digital age, the relation between IFs and paper citations has been weakening. This began first in physics, a field that was quick to make the transition into the electronic domain. Furthermore, since 1990 the overall proportion of highly cited papers coming from highly cited journals has been decreasing and, of these highly cited papers, the proportion not coming from highly cited journals has been increasing. Should this pattern continue, it might bring an end to the use of the IF as a way to evaluate the quality of journals, papers, and researchers.
  2. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.01 
    0.00620971 = product of:
  0.01862913 = sum of:
    0.01862913 = product of:
      0.05588739 = sum of:
        0.05588739 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05588739 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17023447 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048613008 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:22:35
  3. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.: ¬The impact factor's Matthew Effect : a natural experiment in bibliometrics (2010) 0.00 
    0.0045629814 = product of:
  0.013688943 = sum of:
    0.013688943 = product of:
      0.04106683 = sum of:
        0.04106683 = weight(_text_:k in 3338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04106683 = score(doc=3338,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17353764 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048613008 = queryNorm
            0.23664509 = fieldWeight in 3338, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3338)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Since the publication of Robert K. Merton's theory of cumulative advantage in science (Matthew Effect), several empirical studies have tried to measure its presence at the level of papers, individual researchers, institutions, or countries. However, these studies seldom control for the intrinsic quality of papers or of researchers - better (however defined) papers or researchers could receive higher citation rates because they are indeed of better quality. Using an original method for controlling the intrinsic value of papers - identical duplicate papers published in different journals with different impact factors - this paper shows that the journal in which papers are published have a strong influence on their citation rates, as duplicate papers published in high-impact journals obtain, on average, twice as many citations as their identical counterparts published in journals with lower impact factors. The intrinsic value of a paper is thus not the only reason a given paper gets cited or not, there is a specific Matthew Effect attached to journals and this gives to papers published there an added value over and above their intrinsic quality.
  4. Haustein, S.; Bowman, T.D.; Holmberg, K.; Tsou, A.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Larivière, V.: Tweets as impact indicators : Examining the implications of automated "bot" accounts on Twitter (2016) 0.00 
    0.0045629814 = product of:
  0.013688943 = sum of:
    0.013688943 = product of:
      0.04106683 = sum of:
        0.04106683 = weight(_text_:k in 2502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04106683 = score(doc=2502,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17353764 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048613008 = queryNorm
            0.23664509 = fieldWeight in 2502, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2502)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  5. Archambault, E.; Campbell, D; Gingras, Y.; Larivière, V.: Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus (2009) 0.00 
    0.0036923215 = product of:
  0.011076964 = sum of:
    0.011076964 = product of:
      0.033230893 = sum of:
        0.033230893 = weight(_text_:29 in 2933) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033230893 = score(doc=2933,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17100537 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048613008 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2933, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2933)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    19. 7.2009 12:20:29
  6. Haustein, S.; Sugimoto, C.; Larivière, V.: Social media in scholarly communication : Guest editorial (2015) 0.00 
    0.002195464 = product of:
  0.0065863915 = sum of:
    0.0065863915 = product of:
      0.019759174 = sum of:
        0.019759174 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019759174 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17023447 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048613008 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Authors

Years

Themes